1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below and the reasons of the judgment of the court below, the court below comprehensively based on the evidence adopted by the defendant in its judgment, and found the defendant to have concluded a comprehensive insurance contract for business cars containing an indemnity insurance contract with the defendant as stipulated in the contract of non-life insurance with the non-party 1's house owner on May 24, 1995, the defendant was stuffed with the insured, small passenger cars in Seoul 8Reh9155, and the insurance period from May 24, 1995 to May 24, 1996, with the insurance period fixed from May 24, 1995 to the time of death or injury caused by an accident by non-life insurance with the defendant's non-life insurance as stipulated in the contract of the non-life insurance contract, and found the defendant's claim for damages under the premise that the defendant's indemnity insurance period should not have expired due to the death of the non-party 1's central automobile accident insurance company's non-life insurance as of this case.

2. However, Article 62 of the Commercial Act, which provides for the extinctive prescription period of the claim for insurance amount, provides that all non-life insurance and personal insurance shall apply to all non-life insurance unless otherwise specifically provided, and even if the insurance under the special agreement on accident security by the non-insurance motor vehicle in this case actually compensates for actual damage not compensated due to the loss of death or injury caused by the insured by the accident caused by the non-insurance motor vehicle, the right to claim insurance is not different from the claim for insurance amount under Article 662 of the Commercial Act, and if it is not exercised for two years, the extinctive prescription period shall expire. The right to claim insurance can be exercised from the time when the occurrence of the insurance accident becomes specific and conclusive due to the occurrence of the insurance accident, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da36521, Nov. 11, 1997; 97Da54222, May 12, 198).

However, according to the records, it can be recognized that the Park Sung-sung, the insured of the instant insurance contract, died on January 18, 1996 due to the instant traffic accident caused by the non-party 1 driver's truck, a non-life-free motor vehicle. Thus, as long as there is no other reason to interrupt the extinctive prescription, the right to claim insurance under the instant accident security agreement has expired after the lapse of January 17, 1998, unless there is a reason to cancel the extinctive prescription.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the period of extinctive prescription of the insurance claim based on the insurance contract of this case was three years from the date when the person who caused the damage or the identity of the perpetrator was known, which was not completed at the time of the lawsuit of this case. It cannot be said that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim, which affected the conclusion

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)